MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288417159 · doi:10.2298/sarh1508458t

Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumours of the respiratory tract: A series of three cases with varying clinical presentations and treatment

2015· article· en· W2288417159 on OpenAlexaff
Dragana Tegeltija, Aleksandra Lovrenski, Goran M. Stojanović, Milorad Bijelović, Ivana Jelicic, Živka Eri

Bibliographic record

VenueSrpski arhiv za celokupno lekarstvo · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIgG4-Related and Inflammatory Diseases
Canadian institutionsVictoria General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGiant cellHistiocytePathologySputumRespiratory tractLungRespiratory systemNodule (geology)Chest painBronchusSurgeryRespiratory diseaseTuberculosisAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor in the respiratory system is a rare and controversial disease. It is macroscopically well-circumscribed, non-encapsulated, firm and usually a yellowish-white mass. Histologically it is composed of the following spindled and inflammatory cells: lymphocytes, plasma cells, and histiocytes, including Touton type multinucleated giant cells. CASE OUTLINE: The series included a 49-year-old man with a tracheal inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor who complained of hoarseness; a 42-year-old man who was coughing and had a blood-stained sputum, and inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor was in the right main and intermediate bronchus; and a 32-year-old man with chest pain and inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor as a solitary peripheral nodule in the left lower lobe. In all the cases, the tumor was resected bronchoscopically and surgically. CONCLUSION: Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the lung and the trachea is rare. Complete resection, when possible, should be the choice of treatment. After the complete removal, prognosis is generally excellent and recurrences are rare.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSrpski arhiv za celokupno lekarstvoSame topicIgG4-Related and Inflammatory DiseasesFrench-language works237,207